Firefox URL Tracking Removal – Is This A Trend To Watch? via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Firefox recently announced that they are offering users a choice on whether or not to include tracking information from copied URLs, which comes on the on the heels of iOS 17 blocking user tracking via URLs. The momentum of removing tracking information from URLs appears to be gaining speed. Where is this all going and should marketers be concerned?

Is it possible that blocking URL tracking parameters in the name of privacy will become a trend industrywide?

Firefox Announcement

Firefox recently announced that beginning in the Firefox Browser version 120.0, users will be able to select whether or not they want URLs that they copied to contain tracking parameters.

When users select a link to copy and click to raise the contextual menu for it, Firefox is now giving users a choice as to whether to copy the URL with or without the URL tracking parameters that might be attached to the URL.

Screenshot Of Firefox 120 Contextual Menu

According to the Firefox 120 announcement:

“Firefox supports a new “Copy Link Without Site Tracking” feature in the context menu which ensures that copied links no longer contain tracking information.”

Browser Trends For Privacy

All browsers, including Google’s Chrome and Chrome variants, are adding new features that make it harder for websites to track users online through referrer information embedded in a URL when a user clicks from one site and leaves through that click to visit another site.

This trend for privacy has been ongoing for many years but it became more noticeable in 2020 when Chrome made changes to how referrer information was sent when users click links to visit other sites. Firefox and Safari followed with similar referrer behavior.

Whether the current Firefox implementation would be disruptive or if the impact is overblown is kind of besides the point.

What is the point is whether or not what Firefox and Apple did to protect privacy is a trend and if that trend will extend to more blocking of URL parameters that are stronger than what Firefox recently implemented.

I asked Kenny Hyder, CEO of online marketing agency Pixel Main, what his thoughts are about the potential disruptive aspect of what Firefox is doing and whether it’s a trend.

Kenny answered:

“It’s not disruptive from Firefox alone, which only has a 3% market share. If other popular browsers follow suit it could begin to be disruptive to a limited degree, but easily solved from a marketers prospective.

If it became more intrusive and they blocked UTM tags, it would take awhile for them all to catch on if you were to circumvent UTM tags by simply tagging things in a series of sub-directories.. ie. site.com/landing// etc.

Also, most savvy marketers are already integrating future proof workarounds for these exact scenarios.

A lot can be done with pixel based integrations rather than cookie based or UTM tracking. When set up properly they can actually provide better and more accurate tracking and attribution. Hence the name of my agency, Pixel Main.”

I think most marketers are aware that privacy is the trend. The good ones have already taken steps to keep it from becoming a problem while still respecting user privacy.”

Some URL Parameters Are Already Affected

For those who are on the periphery of what’s going on with browsers and privacy, it may come as a surprise that some tracking parameters are already affected by actions meant to protect user privacy.

Jonathan Cairo, Lead Solutions Engineer at Elevar shared that there is already a limited amount of tracking related information stripped from URLs.

But he also explained that there are limits to how much information can be stripped from URLs because the resulting negative effects would cause important web browsing functionality to fail.

Jonathan explained:

“So far, we’re seeing a selective trend where some URL parameters, like ‘fbclid’ in Safari’s private browsing, are disappearing, while others, such as TikTok’s ‘ttclid’, remain.

UTM parameters are expected to stay since they focus on user segmentation rather than individual tracking, provided they are used as intended.

The idea of completely removing all URL parameters seems improbable, as it would disrupt key functionalities on numerous websites, including banking services and search capabilities.

Such a drastic move could lead users to switch to alternative browsers.

On the other hand, if only some parameters are eliminated, there’s the possibility of marketers exploiting the remaining ones for tracking purposes.

This raises the question of whether companies like Apple will take it upon themselves to prevent such use.

Regardless, even in a scenario where all parameters are lost, there are still alternative ways to convey click IDs and UTM information to websites.”

Brad Redding of Elevar agreed about the disruptive effect from going too far with removing URL tracking information:

“There is still too much basic internet functionality that relies on query parameters, such as logging in, password resets, etc, which are effectively the same as URL parameters in a full URL path.

So we believe the privacy crackdown is going to continue on known trackers by blocking their tracking scripts, cookies generated from them, and their ability to monitor user’s activity through the browser.

As this grows, the reliance on brands to own their first party data collection and bring consent preferences down to a user-level (vs session based) will be critical so they can backfill gaps in conversion data to their advertising partners outside of the browser or device.”

The Future Of Tracking, Privacy And What Marketers Should Expect

Elevar raises good points about how far browsers can go in terms of how much blocking they can do. Their response that it’s down to brands to own their first party data collection and other strategies to accomplish analytics without compromising user privacy.

Given all the laws governing privacy and Internet tracking that have been enacted around the world it looks like privacy will continue to be a trend.

However, at this point it time, the advice is to keep monitoring how far browsers are going but there is no expectation that things will get out of hand.

In the Hot Seat: Google’s Search Ads Stir Controversy On Questionable Websites via @sejournal, @brookeosmundson

A recent study published by Adalytics reports Google Search Partners ads appeared on content that doesn’t adhere to its publisher policies.

Per Google’s Publisher Policies, ads are not permitted to serve alongside content that:

• Is illegal or promotes illegal activity
• Infringes copyright
• Sells or facilitates the sale of counterfeit products
• Incites hatred or promotes discrimination against individuals or a group of people
• Misrepresents, misstates, or conceals information about the publisher
• Makes demonstrably false claims
• And more.

The report found examples of search ads on far-leaning political websites despite advertisers’ attempts to add those domains to a block list.

The report raises questions about the lack of transparency and brand safety concerns for advertisers.

What is the Google Search Partner network?

Per definition, the Google Search Partner Network (GSP) is:

A group of search-related websites and apps where your ads can appear.

The GSP network is not new to Google Ads.

It was established in 2003 to expand its reach beyond the Google search engine.

While Google has never published a complete list of websites that belong to the partner network, the Adalytics report found over 51,000 websites that contained the Google Custom Search engine JavaScript enabled.

This infers that websites with that particular JavaScript are part of the GSP network.

For new Google Search campaigns, they’re automatically opted into the 3rd-party network.

Advertisers can opt out in the campaign settings.

Digging into the compromising placement report

In the Adalytics report, there are multiple examples from advertisers where they found their ads on questionable websites.

Image credit: Adalytics.io/blog/search-partners-transparency

The advertisers reported that they had previously blocked their ads from these websites.

If that is the case, this could mean that the “excluded placements” setting in Google Ads is not working as intended.

The report focused primarily on finding websites on the GSP that seem not to meet Google Publisher Policy terms and conditions, including:

• Pornographic websites
• Websites with copyright-violating material
• Websites where its operators are located in countries where U.S. sanctions may apply.

Additionally, findings included that Google search ads paid for by the U.S. Treasury appeared on companies’ websites in countries including Iran and Russia.

This is important because those countries, including the Iranian Allow Steel Company (IASCO), are under specific sanctions.

Ethical and transparency concerns

The thought-provoking report raises many concerns over the ability to trust Google.

The GSP is known to be a “black box” for advertisers because there is no transparency about who is allowed into the GSP.

Further, if Google wants to make strides in rebuilding trust with advertisers and the public in general, this report certainly puts that trust at risk.

When it comes to advertising, every dollar counts in today’s economy.

When marketers can’t trust where their ads are being shown, they could be privy to moving their dollars to other platforms.

In an X (formerly Twitter) thread, Dan Taylor, Vice President of Global Ads at Google, responded to the allegations in the report:

Adalytics has established a track record of publishing inaccurate reports that misrepresent Google’s products and make wildly exaggerated claims. 🧵

— Dan Taylor (@edantaylor) November 28, 2023

Google has been in the headlines, along with other tech giants, for antitrust lawsuits in the past few years.

What can advertisers do?

There are multiple ways advertisers can proactively combat ads shown on questionable content.

#1: Opt-out of Google Search Partner network on Search campaigns

Since this setting is at the campaign level, advertisers must manually go into each Search campaign to opt out of the GSP.

After navigating to your Search campaign, click “Settings” in the left-hand menu.

Uncheck the “Include Google search partners” box to opt out of the GSP.

#2: Review content suitability settings at the account level

It’s important to note that this setting applies to campaigns running on YouTube or Display.

Navigate to “Tools and settings >> Setup >> Content suitability”

Choose from:

• Expanded inventory
• Standard inventory
• Limited inventory

If you’re concerned about brand safety, it’s wise to choose “Limited inventory,” which has the most safeguards.

#3: Review where ads showed in Display campaigns

While Google won’t show details on where specific Search ads are shown on the 3rd-party network, your Display performance can help guide you.

To check placements on Display campaigns, navigate to a particular Display campaign.

On the left-hand menu, go to: “Content >> Where ads showed”

This report shows what domains your ads showed on.

If there are any questionable or poor-performing websites or apps, you can negate them at the campaign or account level.

Since we’re talking about garnering control over Search ads, you should negate these at the account level.

#4: Use advanced settings to negate additional content exclusions

These advanced settings are in the same spot as “content suitability.”

Here, you can exclude content types, including:

• Sensitive content
• Types and labels
• Themes
• Keywords
• Websites
• Apps
• YouTube channels or videos

If you’ve found questionable placements in Display campaigns, you can negate them at the account level instead of adding them to every campaign.

You can read the full Adalytics report here.

Featured Image: Krakenimages.com/Shutterstock